Flight Following Airspace Transitions

[SouthernCalPilot]

I fly in Southern California and I'm nearly always on flight following. Always had a great experience, but a couple experiences lately got me wondering what's happening "behind the scenes." Can any controllers shed some light?

1. Inbound to KSMO via the Sepulveda Pass at 2500, I had been vectored for traffic departing KVNY. I was also avoiding IMC and terrain, so there was considerable back-and-forth between the controller and myself ("Advise if you need further left than 100, I just need you on that heading another 30 seconds," etc). I was very clear about what headings I was turning to and when, and the course I flew had me clipping the KVNY Class D by maybe a half mile. Didn't bother me in the least - I know it's no problem, but it did get me wondering. Does that mean the approach controller would have coordinated with tower for a transition? Or does approach share control of the airspace, so if they've got me there, it's all good? (And would tower have just seen me inside the edge of their airspace on a discrete code and figured, "approach has got him?")

2. Flying up the coast to KOXR at 2000. Socal Approach terminated me, and by the time I got two-way communications with Mugu Approach I was only about a mile from the KNTD Class D. I made my request, and Mugu Approach told me to contact KNTD tower directly and "continue on course to Oxnard." From context, it was clearly the controller's intention that I continue straight ahead into the Class D. Wound up being a non-issue because KNTD tower answered my call immediately. But if they hadn't answered until I was inside their airspace, I'm figuring I'd have been fine because I had Approach's blessing. Can they do that? Even if Approach clearly hadn't had time to coordinate, is their say-so good enough? Is this spelled out anywhere, or is some of this stuff more of an informal or unwritten deal (i.e. Tower had no traffic, and Approach knows it's a non-issue so just figures they might as well have me not pull a 360 while I fiddle with the radios)?

 

[FM_Weasel]

I fly in Southern California and I'm nearly always on flight following. Always had a great experience, but a couple experiences lately got me wondering what's happening "behind the scenes." Can any controllers shed some light?

1. Inbound to KSMO via the Sepulveda Pass at 2500, I had been vectored for traffic departing KVNY. I was also avoiding IMC and terrain, so there was considerable back-and-forth between the controller and myself ("Advise if you need further left than 100, I just need you on that heading another 30 seconds," etc). I was very clear about what headings I was turning to and when, and the course I flew had me clipping the KVNY Class D by maybe a half mile. Didn't bother me in the least - I know it's no problem, but it did get me wondering. Does that mean the approach controller would have coordinated with tower for a transition?

Yes.

7110.65V

2−1−16. SURFACE AREAS

a. Coordinate with the appropriate nonapproach
control tower on an individual aircraft basis before
issuing a clearance which would require flight within
a surface area for which the tower has responsibility
unless otherwise specified in a letter of agreement.

b. Coordinate with the appropriate control tower
for transit authorization when you are providing radar
traffic advisory service to an aircraft that will enter
another facility’s airspace.

NOTE−
The pilot is not expected to obtain his/her own
authorization through each area when in contact with a
radar facility.

c. Transfer communications to the appropriate
facility, if required, prior to operation within a surface
area for which the tower has responsibility.

2. Flying up the coast to KOXR at 2000. Socal Approach terminated me, and by the time I got two-way communications with Mugu Approach I was only about a mile from the KNTD Class D. I made my request, and Mugu Approach told me to contact KNTD tower directly and "continue on course to Oxnard." From context, it was clearly the controller's intention that I continue straight ahead into the Class D. Wound up being a non-issue because KNTD tower answered my call immediately. But if they hadn't answered until I was inside their airspace, I'm figuring I'd have been fine because I had Approach's blessing. Can they do that? Even if Approach clearly hadn't had time to coordinate, is their say-so good enough? Is this spelled out anywhere, or is some of this stuff more of an informal or unwritten deal (i.e. Tower had no traffic, and Approach knows it's a non-issue so just figures they might as well have me not pull a 360 while I fiddle with the radios)?

Because Point Mugu Approach is one of the ATC facilities having jurisdiction over that Delta, and because they used your callsign (they did use your callsign, right?) then you have established 2-way communications and your entry into the Delta is legal, whether or not Approach had time to make the proper coordination themselves. That's a THEM problem, not a YOU problem.

Just use caution, your callsign must be used (most everyone is familiar with the explanation on that finer point) AND the ATC facility you're communicating with must hold jurisdiction over the Delta you're penetrating. It's not enough to be talking to Fort Worth Center while busting KNTD Delta airspace (this isn't physically possible, but there are areas of the nation where you could be in touch with the wrong ATC facility and it won't save you).

Also, ATC should not normally terminate you so late that you'd be in a rush to establish contact with the next facility. That's kinda bogus. Ref 7110.65V

7−6−11. TERMINATION OF SERVICE
Basic radar services should be provided to the extent
possible, workload permitting. Terminate radar
service to aircraft landing at airports other than those
where sequencing service is provided at a sufficient
distance from the airport to permit the pilot to change
to the appropriate frequency for traffic and airport
information.

 

[SouthernCalPilot]

FM_Weasel,

Very good point. Yes, they used my call sign. And thanks for the references!

This also makes me wonder about something I hear on a regular basis - "Flight following makes Class C and Class D disappear, so you only need to worry about Class B." (Or some close variation thereof.) I instruct, and I've often wondered if that's the best way to put it. Seems like it leaves out some nuance, but then again you can't give a student pilot too many "ifs, ands, or buts" before it all gets lost.

Oh, and just for fun: Class B. The magic words are, "Cleared into the Class B." I know they're not in the regs, but seems like the clearest, most effective way to communicate the point. But then last week Socal told me "Climb via the B is approved" and today I heard them tell another aircraft, under the B, "VFR climb to 11,500 is approved." What gives?

 

[FM_Weasel]

It's in the regs.

7110.65V

7−9−2. VFR AIRCRAFT IN CLASS B
AIRSPACE

a. VFR aircraft must obtain an ATC clearance to
operate in Class B airspace.

PHRASEOLOGY−
CLEARED THROUGH/TO ENTER/OUT OF BRAVO
AIRSPACE,
and as appropriate,
VIA (route). MAINTAIN (altitude) WHILE IN BRAVO
AIRSPACE.
or
CLEARED AS REQUESTED.
(Additional instructions, as necessary.)
REMAIN OUTSIDE BRAVO AIRSPACE. (When
necessary, reason and/or additional instructions.)

NOTE−
1. Assignment of radar headings, routes, or altitudes is
based on the provision that a pilot operating in accordance
with VFR is expected to advise ATC if compliance will
cause violation of any part of the CFR.

ATC should use prescribed phraseology. But even if they don't, it's on the pilot to avoid violating CFRs.

 

[SouthernCalPilot]

Per FAR 1:

Air traffic clearance means an authorization by air traffic control, for the purpose of preventing collision between known aircraft, for an aircraft to proceed under specified traffic conditions within controlled airspace.

I'm thinking... If you request an altitude within the B, and receive the response "climb via the B is approved," that almost certainly constitutes a clearance. I know that a heading and altitude assignment alone does not constitute a clearance, but if ATC specifically names the airspace in question, I can't imagine a bust because the controller said the word "approved" and not "cleared." I'm wondering if anyone else has heard this, or if it was just a slip up. As it was, I was out from underneath the B by the time I got to the floor altitude anyway (which made the whole deal even weirder - couldn't have gotten into it if I tried), but had things been a bit different, I'd have continued the climb up into it.

 

[FM_Weasel]

Per FAR 1:



I'm thinking... If you request an altitude within the B, and receive the response "climb via the B is approved," that almost certainly constitutes a clearance. I know that a heading and altitude assignment alone does not constitute a clearance, but if ATC specifically names the airspace in question, I can't imagine a bust because the controller said the word "approved" and not "cleared." I'm wondering if anyone else has heard this, or if it was just a slip up. As it was, I was out from underneath the B by the time I got to the floor altitude anyway (which made the whole deal even weirder - couldn't have gotten into it if I tried), but had things been a bit different, I'd have continued the climb up into it.

You'd be a test-pilot in that case, and hopefully it'd go well.

I'd ask for clarification that clearance into the Bravo was approved.

 

[genot]

What gives is crappy phraseology. Query the controller in the clearance if you aren't satisfied. Seriously, flight in the Bravo, clarify.

 

[FM_Weasel]

It's p. serious stuff. Get the clarification and sleep easy. If the controller gets snotty with you then screw them. They'll learn eventually if enough pilots start pushing back.

 

[Bernoulli Fan]

Just to add some more information, consider what part 91 says on the matter. I'm not disagreeing with @FM_Weasel's assessment of controller responsibilities, but like many things, the FAA has left the door open for the responsibility being hung on the pilot as well:

§91.129 Operations in Class D airspace.
(a) General. Unless otherwise authorized or required by the ATC facility having jurisdiction over the Class D airspace area, each person operating an aircraft in Class D airspace must comply with the applicable provisions of this section...

...

(c) Communications. Each person operating an aircraft in Class D airspace must meet the following two-way radio communications requirements:

(1) Arrival or through flight. Each person must establish two-way radio communications with the ATC facility ... providing air traffic services prior to entering that airspace and thereafter maintain those communications while within that airspace.

In case the approach controller failed to coordinate and something happened, if it came down to it in court, the pilot's only argument would be that the 7110 provides the "otherwise authorized" described in 91.129(a). A seemingly tenuous argument, though obviously the controller would be at fault as well.

In an ideal world, the pilot might ask the approach controller if he needs to call the tower. In the real world, hopefully pilots can count on controllers to do their jobs and make the process efficient.

 

[SouthernCalPilot]

I can see how 91.129 is ambiguous. I'd also wonder is TRACON qualifies as "the ATC facility having jurisdiction over the Class D airspace area." I note the word "the," but does that mean only one facility can qualify, or can TRACON and tower share jurisdiction? I.e, does Pt Mugu Approach have jurisdiction over the Pt Mugu Class D? I'm inclined to say yes (as did FM_Weasel), but I can also see how someone would see "the ATC facility" and not "an ATC facility" and figure that only tower can be the ATC facility. Anyone know of anything official on that point?

 

[FM_Weasel]

I brought it up because an appeal from a pilot was denied on such grounds. The pilot was talking to a Center controller, missed a hand off to an approach controller, and transited a Class D surface area without coordination. Chief counsel denied the appeal and faulted the pilot for not establishing 2-way communications with the facility providing services for that airspace.

I'll look and see if I can find it.

 

[smt6]

One note to also consider is that although the altitude on the sectional for the Class D applies to the pilot, approach could "own" pieces/altitudes blocks of the Class D. For transitions a lot of facilities have LOAs for point outs so that you never have to switch to tower. Swing by CNO one day and take a tower tour to see how the coordination is handled if you want. Going from being a pilot to controller, I was a bit surprised at the ease of a handoff/point out. I also thought a lot more went into it.

 

[genot]

One note to also consider is that although the altitude on the sectional for the Class D applies to the pilot, approach could "own" pieces/altitudes blocks of the Class D. For transitions a lot of facilities have LOAs for point outs so that you never have to switch to tower. Swing by CNO one day and take a tower tour to see how the coordination is handled if you want. Going from being a pilot to controller, I was a bit surprised at the ease of a handoff/point out. I also thought a lot more went into it.

In the sense of approach pointing out an overflight to a VFR tower sure. Intrafacility coordination with weather to account for can be far more detailed. Even with coordination it is very easy for things to go south in a hurry.